2. I'm not sure I've ever witnessed a forum poster use the technique of linking an empty google search screen twice in the same week until now. Congrats Unbreakable, that might be a record.

Yeah, I know. It's such a shame people have to keep asking me to do their thinking for them, isn't it?

We don't want you to do anything of the thing - we want you to think, not just provide spurious claims without evidence. If you made any of these claims in a university level history course you'd be laughed out of class when you never cited any works and told your professor to google it.

2. I'm not sure I've ever witnessed a forum poster use the technique of linking an empty google search screen twice in the same week until now. Congrats Unbreakable, that might be a record.

Yeah, I know. It's such a shame people have to keep asking me to do their thinking for them, isn't it?

We don't want you to do anything of the thing - we want you to think, not just provide spurious claims without evidence. If you made any of these claims in a university level history course you'd be laughed out of class when you never cited any works and told your professor to google it.

Well it's a good thing this isn't university level history, isn't it?

So you can do your own homework, kid. I'm not your daddy, and it's not my job to educate people. If someone doesn't know what the hell I'm talking about, that's a deficiency in their own knowledge, and it's up to them to address it.

So you can do your own homework, kid. I'm not your daddy, and it's not my job to educate people. If someone doesn't know what the hell I'm talking about, that's a deficiency in their own knowledge, and it's up to them to address it.

Your inability to provide any sort of proof makes all of your outrageous statements unsubstantiated bullshit.

So you can do your own homework, kid. I'm not your daddy, and it's not my job to educate people. If someone doesn't know what the hell I'm talking about, that's a deficiency in their own knowledge, and it's up to them to address it.

Your inability to provide any sort of proof makes all of your outrageous statements unsubstantiated bullshit.

That would be true... if my goal were to convince people they are wrong. However, it doesn't bother me one bit that someone on the internet is wrong. Thus, I see no compelling reason to "prove" them wrong.

I have a better idea! Why don't YOU come up with proof that I'm wrong, and then *I* can just wage war against the "proof" you've found, or where you get it from, etc! I'm starting to see playing that game is less energy than showing the billions of people on the intarweb that they hold opinions with zero basis in fact.

So please, by all means, prove that there weren't warships around Japan stopping the delivery of fuel or steel. And be sure to write your post so that it would pass the "university history level" filter which is in effect here (but only regarding my posts). Cuz this is a classy joint.

I'm starting to see playing that game is less energy than showing the billions of people on the intarweb that they hold opinions with zero basis in fact.

The easiest game seems be making broad, outrageous claims with no basis in fact.

You never did explain to me how America coming to the aid of the South Vietnamese government was a pre-emptive war.

Nor how our participation in the UN defense of South Korea qualifies.

According to an uninformed person, a great many thing have no basis in fact. It is not my job to bring information to the billions of people who are... gasp!... wrong on the internet.

Poster, educate thyself.

BTW, I have no burden to prove any of the things you claim. The burden rests with you for showing how those wars were in defense of America... especially since in your world we need to expect aggression out of a country which has never attacked someone in it's entire history.

BTW, I have no burden to prove any of the things you claim. The burden rests with you for showing how those wars were in defense of America.

\

More of your useless prattling. Moreover, just because all wars aren't for the direct defense of America doesn't mean they were wars of aggression. For one if you had any notion of substantive foreign policy or international relation debates over the last century you'd realize that Korea was fought over with the idea of collective security foremost in everybody's mind.

Quote

...especially since in your world we need to expect aggression out of a country which has never attacked someone in it's entire history.

Even if I accepted the idea that Iran hasn't committed acts of aggression through proxy terrorist organizations against Israel - you're dead wrong about Iran having never attacked ANYONE throughout its history. Maybe if you probed the actual history of the region and looked at just a few of the wars Persia engaged in throughout the last few millenia. Persian forces invaded Afghanistan during the nineteenth century to take Herat province. There is also Nader Shah - described by some as Persia's Napoleon. I'd go on, but any sensible person would realize that its amusingly laughable to state that Iran/Persia has never once attacked anyone - ever.

BTW, I have no burden to prove any of the things you claim. The burden rests with you for showing how those wars were in defense of America... especially since in your world we need to expect aggression out of a country which has never attacked someone in it's entire history.

...especially since in your world we need to expect aggression out of a country which has never attacked someone in it's entire history.

Even if I accepted the idea that Iran hasn't committed acts of aggression through proxy terrorist organizations against Israel - you're dead wrong about Iran having never attacked ANYONE throughout its history. Maybe if you probed the actual history of the region and looked at just a few of the wars Persia engaged in throughout the last few millenia. Persian forces invaded Afghanistan during the nineteenth century to take Herat province. There is also Nader Shah - described by some as Persia's Napoleon. I'd go on, but any sensible person would realize that its amusingly laughable to state that Iran/Persia has never once attacked anyone - ever.

Ah yes... the "proxy war". It's the new WMD claim! Except... it's even better, since there won't be any nasty ol' lack of physical evidence to reveal it as the bullshit it actually is.

Seeing how the proponents and supporters of the war in Iraq have proven to be quite reliably wrong on LITERALLY EVERYTHING... it doesn't take a genius to assume they are going to be wrong on anything else they say... especially when even their ability to tell the truth doesn't exist.

FWIW, Unbreakable is no longer allowed to post in R&P and, as such, will not be responding to your questions.

Delurking for a moment.

I am just curious why he was banned? Not because he was argumentative I hope.

Multiple violations of this:

Quote from: Code of Conduct

If you have something against another poster you will either need to keep silent or be respectful of their opinions. Feel free to engage in discussion, but keep it civil. If you can't talk to other people as if they're intelligent, you won’t be posting here for long. Don't talk down to your fellow posters, don't lecture them, and don't beat people over the head with your opinions as though they were facts.

and this:

Quote from: Code of Conduct

In addition, please do not respond to any baiting. By responding you are giving the troll what they want - a reaction out of you. This will soon escalate and get quickly out of hand.

To say that numerous warnings were given would be an understatement.

To be clear- unbreakable has not been banned from the site. Just from posting in R&P. So far, however, he seems to have decided to bow out of GT participation altogether.

It would be very cool if we could look forward to what Gingrich proposed as a modern Lincoln-Douglas style debate and discussion of the issues of our day. Of course, I'm dreaming again...

Quote from: Gingrich

A challenge arrived at the office of every presidential candidate about two weeks ago. It was a letter, signed by journalist Marvin Kalb and me, challenging each one, Republican and Democrat, to sign on for "Nine Nineties in Nine." That is, if nominated, they would pledge to take part in nine 90-minute debates in the nine weeks leading up to election day.

How is this different? We are asking the candidates to throw out the rule book that has stifled political debate. Each party's nominee would be expected to present and defend solutions in a one-on-one dialogue with his or her opponent. The moderator would only keep time and introduce topics.

Sweet. Apparently the Clinton camp peruses the Political forum here at GT.

This is quite clever her. She is playing from behind and needs any break she can find/make to shake up and catch Obama. She's a very good debater and while I haven't watched the 21 Democratic debates, I've read that she is usually scored the winner. As much as I would enjoy seeing this, Obama's camp won't bite on this. I can only imagine what it would be like be on a stage with Mrs. Clinton for 90 minutes, one-on-one.

Sweet. Apparently the Clinton camp peruses the Political forum here at GT.

This is quite clever her. She is playing from behind and needs any break she can find/make to shake up and catch Obama. She's a very good debater and while I haven't watched the 21 Democratic debates, I've read that she is usually scored the winner. As much as I would enjoy seeing this, Obama's camp won't bite on this. I can only imagine what it would be like be on a stage with Mrs. Clinton for 90 minutes, one-on-one.

Apparently she doesn't know exactly how those Lincoln-Douglas debates were done. If they did it the right way she'd speak for an hour - he'd get an hour and a half rebuttal and then she'd get a half hour to finish off. Then they'd switch places for the next. In any debate of that form she would get beaten by Obama handily. He doesn't like the current aska question have half a minute or a minute to respond kind of thing, but I assure you he'd love this kind of format.